Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 1, 2023

On February 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the United Russia party's General Council Commission on International Cooperation and Support of Compatriots Abroad, at the United Russia party's Central Executive Committee building.

The participants will discuss strengthening cooperation with public and political associations in Asia, Africa and Latin America to prevent modern practices and manifestations of neo-colonialism.

Ukraine crisis

The Kiev regime continues to demonstrate its Nazi nature to the rest of the world, by cold-bloodedly shelling peaceful Russian cities, including in the new constituent entities. Last Sunday, the Ukrainian Army delivered an unimaginably barbaric attack on a hospital in Novoaydar (LPR), killing 14 and injuring 24 people. However, it was still not enough for the Ukrainian fascists. On the same day, the Ukrainian Army also shelled a children's hospital in Novaya Kakhovka, the Kherson Region. Fortunately, there were no victims. On January 29, 2023, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement commenting on these crimes of the Kiev regime.

On January 29, workers repairing a railway bridge in the Zaporozhye Region came under the fire of the Ukrainian forces. Four people were killed and five sustained injuries. To this day, the Kiev regime calls people on these territories (which used to be part of Ukraine and which are now Russian regions) "their people." It is "for their sake" that they wage this onslaught. Until the last of them is gone? Interesting logic. Do those sitting in Bankova Street "love" the people so much they are willing to sacrifice them? Here is the answer to why the territories, regions and people had to be defended. For eight years, we have been doing all we could to use political influence and exercise political will as stipulated by the Minsk agreements. Petr Poroshenko, who put his signature under these documents, repeated that the sole purpose of the Minsk agreements was to build up the Kiev regime's military power. There were no other goals or objectives for Kiev. It is yet another proof of what we have been claiming all along.

We wish to stress once again that all crimes of this kind (we are now talking only about barbaric incidents) are meticulously recorded and investigated, in order to hold all culprits accountable.

It is telling that even Western non-governmental organisations have confirmed the Kiev regime's war crimes, although it takes them great effort and they incessantly incorporate allegations that Russia is doing the same, into their press releases and statements. We have heard it all. Even when nobody did anything, Russia was to blame. But, despite the propaganda stunts and never-ending accusations against Russia, even Human Rights Watch had to admit that the Kiev regime overstepped the lines of what it signed on to, along with the "global community" represented by the collective West.

In a recent publication on the Human Rights Watch website, it is reported that the Ukrainian Armed Forces used, in and around Izyum, the Kharkov Region, prohibited scatterable anti-personnel land mines. Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya not only spoke about but actually demonstrated this scatterable land mine at the UN headquarters. Isn't it the proof? A few months have passed since the moment when global media, which for so many years failed to visit Donbass (and even today, they continue to report second-hand information), had a chance to see the land mine with their own eyes in New York. Now, Human Rights Watch is raising this issue. Perhaps it is time to realise that Russia was right after all? Weren't the claims made by a Russian representative at a UN Security Council meeting confirmed by reports of an organisation that has never been caught sympathising with Russia? Perhaps it should be admitted that other facts should have been taken into consideration? The Human Rights Watch document calls for the Ukrainian officials to conduct a thorough investigation into all cases of anti-infantry land mine use, and to ensure compliance with the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines, a convention ratified by Ukraine in 2005.

Will Ukraine listen to this call from an international organisation? Never. There will be no investigation, nothing. Simply because Kiev does only as the United States, Great Britain and NATO tell it. For now, the only order is to destroy people regardless of their ethnicity or faith, for the sake of inflicting "a strategic defeat" on our country. It is an onslaught until the last Ukrainian, as far as the United States and all North Atlantic mechanisms are concerned. Kiev will not investigate anything.

How many years have Brussels and Washington been publicly urging Vladimir Zelensky and, before him, Petr Poroshenko, to fight corruption? To no avail. However, the campaign promises during presidential elections or elections to legislative bodies revolved around combating money laundering and rampant lawlessness in the financial sector. In terms of importance, this was second only to achieving “peace and a peaceful settlement.” Nothing was done to address either. Or, rather, the opposite was happening where corruption was rife and hostilities were ramped up.

Emissaries with their own interests in mind went to Bankova Street, as Kiev’s corruption schemes lead and loop back to Ukrainian banks and figures and then some, including their “donors” and “sponsors.” The money is run through the Kiev regime and returns “to the base.” Then, those who pretend to rule Ukraine (in fact, they are hired personnel to serve North Atlantic interests) and the Anglo-Saxon establishment, which is interested in supplies and increasing funding, split the spoils.

When things turned sour and the facts of sweeping corruption on a global scale implicating Washington, London, Brussels and Kiev caught the eye of Western journalists, special representatives from all Western quarters strongly advised that Vladimir Zelensky conduct “exemplary public floggings” and “shake-ups.” All of that is literally broadcast live in Ukraine.

Without a doubt, they will make a perfunctory effort to give the fall guys a dressing down. However, everyone is well aware that a scheme involving tranches, billions in aid, loans, endless promotion of unnecessary and harmful (primarily for Ukraine) reforms that were generously funded from the pockets of Western taxpayers has been fine-tuned for years. This is a working arrangement for the collective West and the people who represent the interests of the West rather than Ukraine, but still identify as Ukrainian politicians. The arrangement involving war crimes will work exactly the same way.

Human Rights Watch’s materials will go down the same path as previous documents from similar organisations did. They will be withdrawn from circulation in controlled media and modified. We have already seen the German media skillfully quote these data, mixing them with rhetoric about Russia, instead of focusing on the crimes committed by the Kiev regime.

Meanwhile, peaceful life is returning to the territories liberated from the Kiev regime. So far, Russian servicemen have cleared of mines more than 32,000 hectares of land, checked more than 2,800 buildings and 28 kilometres of roads, and have located and destroyed over 975,000 explosive devices in the process. Work is underway to rebuild the new Russian regions, with 575 kilometres of roads, 16 bridges, and 3,500 energy sites repaired or built anew. Residential buildings are being repaired and new housing is being built in Mariupol and other cities in the liberated regions.

We strongly condemn the increasingly aggressive and bellicose rhetoric of the Western officials who have not been shy about making high-profile statements about the Ukraine conflict lately. I know where they are coming from. They feel trapped in their own position and their lack of arguments to explain to their own people what they have done to Europe, among other things. Hence, the hysterical and heartrending yelling in an attempt to find at least some explanation for what they are doing.

In this regard, we took note of what the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, had to say when answering a question about the possible supply of warplanes to Ukraine. He said, “nothing can be ruled out in principle” provided that, in particular, “it will be useful for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, will not lead to an escalation or strikes targeting the territory of Russia, or weaken the defence capability of France.” That’s absurd. The fact that Paris was willing to supply fighters to Kiev was confirmed by the French Minister of Defence on a visit to Ukraine on January 28. Is the President of France positive that sending heavy weapons and warplanes to Kiev for further use in combat operations will not lead to escalation? I find it inconceivable that an adult would use such reasoning.

Statements like this are only whetting the Zelensky-led regime’s already uncontrollable appetite. By shelling hospitals and with the mass killing of civilians he clearly showed how Western military “injections” “do not lead to an escalation of the conflict.” They “bring peace” don’t they? Apparently, these planes will be used to drop candies and cookies. I view matters differently. The other day, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and former ambassador of Ukraine to the FRG, Andrey Melnik, demanded that Germany supply submarines to Ukraine “in order to throw the Russian fleet out of the Black Sea.” Adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Mikhail Podolyak said that Ukraine was conducting “intensive talks with Western countries to supply aircraft and long-range missiles to Kiev.” Is asking Germany for submarines also part of the de-escalation effort? Would they use the submarines to scare the dolphins? One has to remain sensible in their statements.

If this is a principled decision adopted by a particular sovereign country, the leadership of that country should be responsible for its actions, not contradict them with words, not think that they can cover things up with rhetoric about peace and de-escalation, while continuing to sign executive orders or decrees on allocating weapons and heavy equipment to support the Nazi regime. That won’t work and is unacceptable. This is not a proper solution.

Hundreds of thousands of people are talking about madness unfolding in Europe, France, in particular. That should be a good sign. After all, the issue is not about “Russian propaganda.” As you may be aware, Russian television, in particular RT France has been removed from that country’s information space through the efforts of the French authorities. We will respond to that, but that’s not the point. This persecution has been underway for a long time now. There is no more broadcasting and no more people who, from the point of view of the Elysee Palace, "threaten" France’s information security. Are there fewer problems now? Are the French people feeling the pinch less? The problems remained, and with the policies conducted by the Elysee Palace, they will become worse.

On January 31, we learned about the German defence company Rheinmetall’s plans to send up to 139 Leopard tanks to Ukraine, if need be. In addition, in an interview with Reuters, the head of Rheinmetall, Armin Papperger, said the company could increase the production of artillery shells and tank ammo many times over and would start producing American HIMARS MLRS in Germany in partnership with Lockheed Martin. Sure enough, that doesn’t make Germany part of the conflict. Or do you still have doubts? Look at their intentions; this is not being done as part of a humanitarian effort. It’s not that employees of that German corporation will chip in and buy some equipment for Ukraine. It would be a state order and thus, a political decision.

To reiterate, any kind of weapon sent to the Nazi Kiev regime will be considered by the Russian Armed Forces as a legitimate military target and will be destroyed.

For those who are still struggling to understand, we repeat that by helping Ukraine, the West is pursuing its own self-serving goals, because it is helping not the people of Ukraine, but the Kiev regime in its opposition to our country. All weapons supplies to Kiev have been paid for with the blood of ordinary Ukrainians, who are shipped to the frontline to protect the financial interests and geopolitical plans of the United States and its allies. This bloody enterprise has no other meaning but that.

It may be a wrong, but a concise way to put it: the United States has been looking for someone to fulfill this mission for a long time now. They ended up finding the only ones without a heart or a brain, and that’s the Zelensky-led Kiev regime. But they had to make a real effort to find people who were born on their own land and who destroyed everything that their fathers and grandfathers dreamed of. You can hardly find anyone like that in human history. But there is one, and it’s Vladimir Zelensky. You have to have a real gift to ruin a country like that with your own hands.

Talking about seizing Russian assets and using them to allegedly rebuild Ukraine looks blasphemous against this background. It’s ironic to take money illegally in order to rebuild Ukraine, which is now being destroyed with weapons supplies. A totally warped approach.

The plight of Ukraine is entirely on the conscience (although there is no such thing there) of the NATO countries. Western lawyers are bending over backwards trying to find a “legal” way to expropriate the above property. Clearly, these funds will never find their way to ordinary Ukrainians, but will end up in the pockets of Kiev embezzlers and their foreign accomplices. They are now broadcasting live a free show about how they are going to overcome corruption in just a couple of days. I haven’t seen a show of such proportions in a long time. Everyone who was considered a respectable associate and a closest partner, a business partner just yesterday was called an objectionable character, overnight. Sure, it will take just two days of travesty to get things back on track.

These sponsors and masterminds are trying to justify the cherished idea of expropriating Russian assets, which will be used to pay for more weapons and cover the fees paid to Western advisers, instructors, and the like. The West is spending enormous amounts of money. What do they need Russian assets for? Is it in order to be able throw an information “bone” to people in Europe who are no longer sure what kind of sign they should take to the streets and what size letters should they use to ask the EU countries’ leaders what they are trying to accomplish and why it is necessary to sponsor the bloodbath in Ukraine? There is no answer to that question, so they need to come up with at least something. They will be going around saying that this is not European taxpayers’ money, but money taken from the “bad Russians.” The logic is transparent. There is nothing secret about it. Everything is clear.

I hate to break it to you, but there’s no legal way to appropriate Russian assets. I know anything is possible in a world that is imposed by the collective West, where the presumption of innocence (as the German Minister of Justice conveyed from a bully pulpit) might be nonexistent, and where a country, an individual, or an organisation can be pronounced not even a defendant, but a guilty party. However, in terms of the law and legality, which have been in force for decades, there is no legitimate way to take something away from a people and give it to others. Even a child is aware of this common truth. Any attempt to encroach on our property or assets will be regarded as robbery and will not go unanswered.

The best way to bring peace and the prospects for reconstruction back to Ukraine is to comply with Russia’s well-known demands and to recognise the realities that have shaped up recently and the realities that existed before that. You have to live in the real world rather than invent a non-existent one.

Supplying Kiev with weapons and turning it into an increasingly obedient tool for confronting Russia, the collective West continues to support Ukrainian neo-Nazis and, sure enough, to turn a blind eye to their atrocities and crimes. In this context, Meta’s decision to take the neo-Nazi nationalist battalion Azov, which is recognised in Russia as a terrorist organisation for numerous war crimes, including against civilians, off the list of dangerous individuals and organisations is a telltale sign. Even the US Congress recognised it as “openly Nazi” and “fascist” back in 2015.

We understand perfectly well that this is what Western values are for. They change to fit the circumstances, weather and electoral cycles.

Anything goes in the West’s efforts to oppose Russia starting with flooding its Kiev-based puppets with weapons to brainwashing their own people by spreading falsehoods about our country, imposing perverted values and using technology to manipulate crowds.

The Zelensky-led regime continues the all-out mobilisation of the country’s male population, often using sophisticated methods such as intimidation, bullying, and violence, and brute force in all forms. A number of media outlets, including in Europe, used the term “kidnapping” to describe this “process.” What else can you think of? The SBU and their information “tools” are trying to say this is not true. But who is to blame here? This is the way the “search” (in reality, manhunt and kidnapping) for people in Ukraine is carried out.

This is beginning to worry people not only in Ukraine, but in neighbouring Hungary and Romania, which are seriously concerned about mass recruitment of their compatriots to Ukrainian forces. This is nothing short of kidnapping, when people have to call special security services seeing some shady characters shoving young people into cars and driving them away in an unknown direction. The young people scream but can’t do anything about it.

Hungary and Romania have experienced blatant violations of their legal rights by the Kiev regime before as well. Back then, it was not so barbaric and savage. The rights to language, culture, and political views were infringed upon whereas now it’s about a real manhunt. Some people in Budapest are asking a sensible question about why the Hungarian ethnic minorities are allowed to die in the battles for Ukraine, but are barred from speaking their native language. Does this apply only to Hungary and Hungarians living in Ukraine? This applies to everyone. That’s what the regime is all about.

All of that goes to show just one thing: the Ukrainian authorities and their Western handlers see the people of the country as cannon fodder and are prepared to sacrifice them without hesitation to their own interests and criminal ambitions.

No matter how hard the West tries to cause harm to Russia or to mislead the international community about its real and purely selfish goals in Ukraine, history will put everything in its place and give everyone their dues. We will keep on putting on record the criminal steps, actions and deeds committed by the Kiev regime not only for historical records, but also in order to investigate them and to mete out justice.

Meta Corporation’s decision to take the Ukrainian military formation Azov off the list of dangerous organisations

I would like to spend a moment discussing the American Meta Corporation’s decision to take the Ukrainian military formation Azov off the list of dangerous organisations. It appears Azov is no longer dangerous.

Meta Corporation has once again showed “true humanity” by taking this absurd politicised step. Does anyone have any doubt that this company is not a respectable and peaceful organisation, but an extremist organisation? It’s an actual terrorist cell. The fact that an organisation that positions itself as a facilitator of communication for businesses, people-to-people contacts and information transfer purposes, is doing this kind of things on its website, once again shows the absolute correctness of the actions that the Russian Federation has taken against it. Now, Azov will be able to open a social media account and promote violence and criminal warfare methods.

I remember a time when a Meta account was blocked for posting a photo of a sculpture by Michelangelo’s David or paintings by Botticelli. It’s not that they could have blocked it, but they went ahead and blocked it. As they put it, it violated the rules of the community. These were photos of world art masterpieces without aggression, violence, or ambiguous scenes, or images that would be inappropriate for children. No, these works of art are displayed in the museums of the world’s capitals that are open to children. Children who come to a museum can see Michelangelo’s David. It is not illegal. Also, more often than not, the museums have a research department. However, when you posted a photo, a reproduction of the David sculpture on Facebook, your account was blocked immediately, because it might hurt someone’s feelings, whereas Azov, with its extremism, is not hurting anyone’s feelings. Did we get it right?

These are not double standards, not even savagery or barbarism. The barbarians had an ideology of their own, which is unacceptable to us and which went down in history precisely under the name “barbarism,” but at least it had its own logic. The logic of the Meta Corporation contradicts everything that it stated a year or two ago. On the one hand, tolerance, on the other, sweeping restrictions on everything that until recently caused no objections. At the same time, they greenlighted extremism, terrorism and truly racist, Nazi and neo-Nazi practices. How is it even possible? Not only do they engage in calls for violence, but they also engage in committing widespread acts of disinformation and spreading fake claims. This decision underscores the fact that the boundaries of the “freedom of expression” and neoliberal values that are cherished by Westerners are very fluid and lined with self-justifications (even praise) of openly extremist ideology and activities. They themselves are turning their backs on the experience that they have gained in recent decades.

The West is ready to give voice to people who openly support the ideas of neo-Nazism and hatred on a national and ethnic basis. When did Azov hide this? Not only did it never hide it, it put it front and center. This is their logic. It is not just the reincarnation of Nazi symbols, but also of Nazi ideology. It is the revival of meanings, and they are a natural motivation for action. It is the formation of a future seen in this way: segregation, division into right and wrong, into those who are worthy and those who are unworthy. Let me remind you that it was no coincidence that the Azov battalion fighters were on the Meta blacklist earlier: many of them have already committed illegal acts based on their criminal convictions. What are these Facebook rules that can change without any logic? This is not how it happens. There must be reasonable explanations based on facts.

Any concessions for Azov extremists and terrorists are unacceptable. It is impossible to separate good from bad among such a criminal contingent. These people are already sworn to evil. This is why, in accordance with Russian law, this entire nationalist paramilitary structure is included in the unified national federal list of terrorist organisations without exceptions or caveats. This structure, infected with nationalist ideology, has deep roots in the past, but at the same time it bears fruit to this day.

There is no reason to believe that the part of the Azov battalion that was legalised under the guise of becoming part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was somehow re-educated. On the contrary, they recruit into their ideology those who perhaps believe truly and sincerely in defending Ukraine as their duty. Now this is an ideological brotherhood. This contingent organically blended into the Ukrainian army, on the one hand, because of their complete indoctrination with hard-line ultra-right ideas, and on the other hand, in order to whitewash neo-Nazis in the eyes of the public and further promote the spread of their misanthropic ideas among Ukrainian soldiers and foreign mercenaries. It is time to admit the obvious: neo-Nazism is an ugly political ideology used by the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors to justify their crimes in Ukraine. But the Azov battalion should not be under any illusions. Massive evidence of the atrocities committed by them, including massacres of civilians, has been documented and proven in court. Their bloody deeds will not go unpunished.

The current decision of Meta’s management, crazy as it looks, is part and parcel of the strategy of the West to conduct a hybrid war against Russia on the field of information confrontation. Functionaries of the Kiev regime say openly that they agreed on such additional support with Meta representatives in Davos. The fact that this place has become the centre of some secret-sacred dark meanings and forces is obvious, judging by their wild and insane statements. It turns out that this is a platform for legalising extremism in cyber environment. And this allegedly independent transnational corporation, which considers itself a pioneer in implementing a responsible approach to information distribution by IT businesses, clearly adapts itself to the US authorities, which cover and justify criminals who are on the side of the Kiev regime in every possible way.

Where is Meta’s integrity, which was declared 10 years ago? Back then, it was forming the foundations and expanding its own impressive list of organisations and individuals who lost access to the Meta platforms for terrorism, incitement to violence, justification of far-right ideas and radical violent actions. Where did it all go? You provided reports on it and were proud of it. We can see the blatant deception of the general public, primarily the users of Meta products themselves. We have long identified such an unscrupulous game for ourselves, so once again the legitimacy of the adoption at the national level on March 21, 2022 of a court decision recognising the activities of social networks controlled by Meta as extremist is confirmed.

US practice of making neutral countries join anti-Russia sanctions

We hear so much from the collective West that they are acting in “solidarity,” or it is the “shared opinion” or “unanimous.” We have repeatedly suggested that apparently, they do not understand what “solidarity” is. I have a new term for this. I would term what we are now seeing across the European Union and NATO “forced solidarity.” This is an oxymoron of course. Solidarity is something that comes from the soul, from the heart, from one's own analysis. It is about people of different views showing unity on an issue absolutely voluntarily and independently. What we see now is truly “forced solidarity.”

Driven by an obsessive urge to cause the worst possible harm to Russia, the United States is increasingly resorting to threats of secondary sanctions to coerce neutral states into cutting off ties with Russia. They call it “solidarity:” “This country is acting in solidarity with us.” Later it turns out that the country was subjected to a psychological attack that included threats of various methods of pressure such as freezing accounts, or arrests. Not many can endure such inhuman pressure. People, countries, leaders of states can break. And once they do, representatives of the United States announce that it is “solidarity.” They say, these people used to be embarrassed to disclose their support for anti-Russia sentiments, but now they have shown their true attitude, which is solidarity. No, this is not solidarity. This is blackmail and threats, which are used to break people, politicians, and thereby force them to accept a concept alien to them. Not all of our partners have been able to resist such flagrant blackmail.

As a specific example was the December 2022 incident where the Russian ship Ursa Major was denied berth in Bangladesh. The authorities withdrew their previously issued permission to enter the port of Mongla as required by the Americans. The incident delayed the delivery of a batch of equipment for the Rooppur NPP under construction by more than a month, which is hardly in the Bangladeshi side’s best interests.

We believe that US attempts to force third countries to join the anti-Russia sanctions are completely devoid of legitimacy and must be stopped.

Dutch leaders’ apologies for slave trade

We have noted the public statements by the King of the Netherlands, Willem-Alexander, and Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who apologised for the Netherlands’ role in the slave trade. How nice. After so many years.

Their speeches were mainly addressed to African and Caribbean states. At the same time, the colonial past of countries like Indonesia was not even mentioned. In this context, we should recall that the Culture System, the policy pursued by the Dutch government for its Dutch East Indies colony from 1830–1870, was in fact not very different from the slave trade. The Javanese brought to Suriname were deprived of rights and brutally exploited. In fact, they replaced the Africans who had been freed.

The centuries-long merciless economic exploitation of Indonesia is a confirmed fact now. Significant damage was also done to the national culture during that period. Many invaluable historical objects are still kept in archives or exhibited in museums in the Netherlands. At the same time, The Hague is trying its best to avoid discussing compensation to Indonesia for material damage and returning significant artifacts to the Indonesian people. The British are doing the same. Do you know how many things they took from the Acropolis? Whatever steps the Greeks took were futile. By the way, British diplomats actually used their diplomatic immunity to ship it off.

We believe European politicians are applying double standards again. While trying to satisfy the internal public demand to “bury the barbaric policies of the past,” they are not ready to bear any material or moral responsibility for colonial-era crimes committed by their predecessors.

Anti-Muslim campaigns in a number of European countries

Following the recent outbreaks of Islamophobia in Sweden and the Netherlands, we emphasise our principled stance on that actions aimed to offend the feelings of believers and incite inter-religious hatred are unacceptable. I should note this is not a populist position that depends on who benefits. This is our committed position that we have voiced for many years, promoting it on international platforms, voting for it, and initiating relevant documents.

We are particularly indignant at the fact that the anti-Muslim campaigns were authorised by local authorities. We consider it hypocritical to justify manifestations of religious intolerance by commitment to freedom of expression. These are completely different things.

UNGA Resolution 75/258, adopted by consensus on January 26, 2021, states that, under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

We support High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations Miguel Angel Moratinos, who has condemned the malicious act of burning the Quran, equating it with a manifestation of hatred for all Muslims, which has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

We share his concern about growing intolerance, hate speech and religious discrimination, which is leading to increasing anti-Islam, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic sentiments across the globe.

I am confident that a hundred years from now similar (or remaining) representatives of the world that deems it acceptable to burn a book sacred to millions, if not to a billion people, will come out to admit guilt for wrongdoing that took place, say, a century ago. So perhaps these processes should somehow be synchronised? Perhaps today the Netherlands should repent not for its slave-owning past of a century ago but rather for current manifestations of religious hatred in their society. That would make sense, wouldn’t it?

IOC President Thomas Bach on possibly allowing Russian athletes to compete during the 2024 Olympics in Paris under a neutral flag

We took note of the most recent statement by President of the International Olympic Committee Thomas Bach regarding possible admission of Russian and Belarusian athletes to the 2024 Summer Olympic Games in Paris under a neutral flag.

We would like to reiterate Russia’s principled position on the unacceptability of politicising sports. You must decide, either this is world sport with its principles, foundations, and international legal documents that regulate it; or these are sports events held in national “apartments” as events with restricted access that are held behind the scenes on grounds that are a far cry from the rules and principles of world sports. It is called the world sport not because there are many countries and each one is promoting particular sports. It has international legal foundations underlying its existence, functioning, cooperation and future. This should not be forgotten. The incumbent bureaucrats of world sports who head the corresponding Olympic Committees and, by the way, receive salaries not from the pockets of sponsors, but from these international legal institutions, should not forget that this is not their private business.

We consistently stand for fair competition and providing athletes from all over the world with equal rights to participate in international tournaments. Sport must unite. This idea is enshrined in numerous international legal documents and is the foundation underlying the Olympic movement and the world sport. Not the other way round, where it becomes a breeding ground for centrifugal political trends and opposing forces. We are convinced that the international sports community must work for the sake of a common future and do so (to reiterate) on the basis of international law.

Of course, there are ways to promote any local or even global private sports partnership. But in that case they should not claim to act as a substitute for international world sport. Then it should be called private operation and – the way Meta Corporation is doing it – create whatever rules of your choosing for the community. But do not take something that was created with common money and common resources by people other than you and distort it.

However, Thomas Bach’s idea about the possibility of admitting Russians, which resulted from requirements that are clearly unacceptable for Russia, seemed too “soft” to some countries. Mr Bach came under fire from Polish Sports Minister Kamil Bortniczuk who not only made an anti-Russian statement (which has become typical of Warsaw these days), but also announced plans to create a coalition against the participation of the national teams of Russia and Belarus in the 2024 Olympics.

Forming a coalition to prevent athletes from other countries from participating in a sports event runs counter to the principles of world sport. Tell it like it is: you are simply afraid of the competition and are not sure how to do better than Russian athletes. When the era of confrontation between the systems ended and the Soviet Union collapsed, you were so hopeful that there would never be any sport in the countries of the post-Soviet space and that it will never revive as a national effort or as an individual display of talent and ability. You sincerely believed it and were horrified to see that sport came back with a vengeance in the post-Soviet space and began to win what it had every right to win. Athletes from the CIS have become leaders in a number of sports and started winning at the Olympic Games. Our coaches were again recognised as the world’s leading experts and shared their knowledge with their foreign partners without hiding anything. The very space that you, including in Warsaw, have “buried” has all of a sudden become a hospitable home to vast quantities of world sporting events from the Olympic Games (the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi remain in people’s memory as an amazing celebration and an outstanding event in world sport) to local events that bring together guests from all over the world and are no less important.

At this point, everyone, I mean the collective West, became terrified. It has already cut plots for itself and began to celebrate an imaginary victory over the people who were not going to illegally compete with them, but were only trying to prove, based on existing rules and sports standards, that they have the right to their own achievements. Now what? They are using every avenue to make up tales about doping and politics, to accuse our athletes of some non-existent deviations from the rules and norms to hinder the development of sports in our country, which has already become part of the world sports. Where will it lead us? I will tell you now.

These Russophobic initiatives can cause nothing but regret. I am talking about Belarus as well which for many years has been a fair game for sports functionaries and Western politicians.

This goes to show once again that Western countries are prepared to do anything, even come up with pseudo-ultimatums by the International Olympic Committee, in order to achieve their opportunistic goals.

To reiterate, the attempts to “squeeze” our country out of international sports are doomed. But this is not the problem. The problem is that fixation on “squeezing” our athletes out of world sports is destroying the international sports movement.

Criticisms of several special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council regarding the Moscow City Court’s decision to close the Moscow Helsinki Group

We have taken note of the criticisms published on the website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights by the Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as on the situation of human rights defenders in connection with the decision by the Moscow City Court to close the Moscow Helsinki Group.

This bewildering move by the Council’s special procedures is not only another manifestation of double standards and the increasing politicisation of human rights issues by experts, but also blatant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

We would like to remind the aforementioned defenders of the "civil space" in our country that the judiciary in the Russian Federation is independent and autonomous. By criticising a judicial decision made in accordance with applicable law, they show unacceptable disrespect for the Russian national legal and judicial system.

In this regard, we again urge the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council to be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality, which should be the basis for their activities, as well as to respect the principle of separation of powers in the Russian Federation as a country of laws.

If they are guided by principles that, from the point of view of these experts, are above national legal standards or national principles of the state setup (maybe that is their perception of the world), I would like to ask a question: when in Western countries – the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France and many others – Russian media outlets were closed, many of which were registered in accordance with all rules of their domestic legislation and complied with it, when they had their accreditation taken away, had their broadcasts removed from satellites, expelled from their countries and arrested (like, for example Marat Kasem in the Baltic countries, who was harassed in Lithuania and detained and arrested in Latvia), did these special rapporteurs consistently express their indignation? What’s wrong with that? Are you in the human rights business or is Marat Kasem a different person? Not the man you normally defend? I sincerely do not understand this, nor do I understand the logic of such people and such actions and statements. If the Moscow Helsinki Group is worthy of an entire report or statement from the UN special rapporteur on human rights, why isn't Marat Kasem worthy? Or RT France or the dozens of Russian journalists who have been declared almost enemies of the European continent and the United States, who wander from one sanctions list to another, and against whom the real harassment has been going on for a long time. Where is everybody? You put your expert opinion above national legislation. I would like an answer to this question. Maybe the media could ask them. There is an obvious bias.

Inauguration of Satellite Mission Control Centre in Angola built with Russia’s assistance

On January 27, 2023, the Satellite Mission Control Centre built with the assistance of Russia was launched in the capital of Angola, Luanda. The event was attended by President of Angola Joao Lourenco, the government of Angola in full force, and representatives of the technical and scientific elite of the country. The Russian side was represented by delegations of Korolev Energia Rocket and Space Corporation and Reshetnev Information Satellite Systems, who participated in the implementation of this project.

In his speech, the President of Angola emphasised the role of Russia in developing the space industry in Angola, in particular, in manufacturing and successful launch of the Angosat 2 satellite from the Baikonur Space Launch Centre on October 12, 2022, in the construction of the Satellite Mission Control Centre, and the training of qualified personnel.

We would like to stress that Russia operated in difficult conditions and had to constantly overcome obstacles artificially created by the West on the way to the implementation of the Angosat 2 project. Russia has proved that it is a reliable business partner capable of effectively cooperating in the high-tech space sector as well as of assisting in the formation of Angola’s own modern scientific base.

The relevant Russian departments and organisations are ready to further cooperate with friendly Angola in the peaceful exploration of outer space, including in expanding the capabilities of the Angosat 2 satellite. All these issues were discussed in detail during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Luanda on January 25 this year and talks with President of Angola Joao Lourenco and Foreign Minister Tete Antonio.

We congratulate our Angolan friends on this significant event.

We also wonder whether this event will be properly covered in the French media. I noticed that the French media actively follow everything that Russia does in Africa; they publish a lot of information that is negative or questioning the contribution and role of our country in promoting the development of the African continent. It seems to me that this event should reassure the French public if articles do appear in the French press. Otherwise, we will see the French media’s concern for Africa and involvement in cooperation with Russia as imaginary or stimulated by someone.

Official reception for the Moscow Diplomatic Club

On February 9, the Cultural Centre of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUPDK) will host a reception for the Moscow Diplomatic Club in connection with Diplomatic Workers’ Day, marked every February 10. The Council of Young Diplomats organises the reception serving as a venue for an open and free exchange of ideas between young employees of foreign policy agencies.

The event’s programme includes presentations of several international events, scheduled for 2023, including the 14th International Economic Forum “Russia-Islamic World: KazanForum 2023”, the 2nd Russia-Africa Summit, the Games of the Future competitions and projects of the Russian Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs and the Council of Young Diplomats. Scholarship holders from the New Names charitable foundation are to speak at the reception, and an exhibition called Diplomacy in the Name of Peace honouring Soviet diplomat Andrey Gromyko is also part of the programme.

About 150 diplomats from 50 countries are to attend the event.

Holding the 21st Winter Diplomatic Games

On February 11, the Moscow Country Club, a subsidiary of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUPDK) will host the 21st Winter Diplomatic Games, as part of events to mark Diplomatic Workers’ Day.

This is a chance for sport at the proper international level without any demarcation lines or political boundaries. Teams from national diplomatic missions and international organisations will vie for prizes in cross-country skiing, table tennis, Russian billiards and mini-football. World renowned Russian athletes, including Olympic champions and those of other global tournaments, will act as referees.

A gala ice hockey match for the 21st Winter Diplomatic Games Cup and marking Diplomatic Workers’ Day will be the main attraction. The Foreign Ministry team will play against The Ghostbusters consisting of well-known actors, musicians, athletes and public figures. Let’s see who wins.

The participants will attend presentations of the Taste of the Arctic recreational programme and a food festival, part of the Gastronomic Map of Russia project that will acquaint guests with the traditional cuisine of indigenous Russian Arctic nations.

We are inviting media representatives to take part in covering the games. If possible, I would be happy to attend. For more details, go to the GlavUPDK website.

Sergey Lavrov’s interview to Dmitry Kiselev

Before we move on to the question and answer segment, I would like to announce something interesting for tomorrow. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will give an interview to Dmitry Kiselev, Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency and the host of Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week) TV show. The interview can be seen live at 10.30 am on February 2 on Rossiya 24 channel. I think everyone here can guess what they will be discussing – the current international agenda. That will include a range of issues, and I will reveal a secret: we have not set any time limit. The live broadcast will continue as long as the conversation goes.

The live stream can be also seen on the Foreign Ministry’s official online resources. Join us on our website and social media accounts.

Answers to media questions:

Question: During his visit to South Korea, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on that country’s government to step up support for Ukraine. How would you comment on this? Was this an attempt to drag as many countries as possible into the Ukraine crisis?

Maria Zakharova: The West’s attempts to move NATO’s power potential into Asia are a major challenge to regional security. We have talked about this more than once, giving specific examples of what is happening. This includes the creation of new “alliances.” Their goal is obvious – to destabilise the Asia-Pacific Region to suit US interests, reshuffle the existing balance of power, and “make friends to spite others.”

The NATO policy to promote the globalisation of its mandate, approved at last year’s summit, is being actively implemented by its eastern partners – Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand. These are the outposts that are propagating this ideology. This quartet has de facto set up a mechanism for coordinating actions to ensure NATO’s permanent presence in the Asia-Pacific Region. These countries have essentially lost their Asian identity that they once had. The confrontational doctrine of Euro-Atlanticism and adherence to the NATO agenda are incompatible with peaceful and inclusive co-development and mutual respect for interests – principles fundamental to Asia.

Prior to this, Asia has been developing without any active NATO interference (I am not discussing their smaller routine intelligence work or similar activity). But by and large, this region has not been covered by NATO’s “umbrella.” And look at the fantastic growth rates the Asia-Pacific Region has been posting. It has gone far beyond any projected numbers or potential. Last year’s results were published recently. That, after two years of pandemic that have literally upended the concept of traditional economic ties.

The Asia-Pacific region is becoming the largest economic, financial, commercial centre on a global scale, and that was not achieved by draining the resources from other parts of the world. It is due to hard work, to the development of science and technology, the effective use of labour resources and opportunities, and unlocking their potential. And that was like crossing the Rubicon, because the West certainly appeared unable to reconcile with this. How could their former colonies not just “raise their heads,” but raise them head and shoulders above those Western countries that had exploited their resources? Of course, NATO immediately needed to wedge into the agenda in a region where the bloc does not belong (as a reminder, NATO stands for the North Atlantic Alliance). And that can mean only one thing – the destabilisation of that part of the world.

You can note down the time now. The only question is: Will the region have enough internal strength, or the immunity to resist this destructive activity? The confrontational doctrine of Euro-Atlanticism and adherence to the NATO agenda are incompatible with peaceful and inclusive co-development and mutual respect for interests – the principles fundamental to Asia. The AUKUS (Australia - United Kingdom - United States) bloc was also created with the purpose of introducing NATO to the region.

This throws the concept of indivisible security into disarray, a concept that we have always insisted on, and which was previously laid out in joint documents we signed with the Westerners. But this concept has been compromised. It is now interpreted in a perverted way as the NATO ideology of a wider Euro-Atlantic security space and its “Indo-Pacific” concept.

We hear about NATO’s plans to penetrate the ASEAN perimeter through the mechanisms built around the association, including ASEAN defence ministers’ meetings with dialogue partners.

It should not be forgotten that the European Union now ensures a quasi-NATO presence in Asia, having become a European branch of NATO. While still using its rather tarnished “economic union” brand, this de facto military and political entity now seeks to get into the multilateral formats in the Pacific Ocean zone, and even in the Indian Ocean area, looking to use the Indian Ocean Rim Association, with its always constructive regional cooperation agenda, as a platform.

I think we will see which of the trends prevails soon enough. I do hope that the stability inherent in that region – based on balanced, wise, and inclusive policies of countries that have gone through hard times over the centuries, as colonies and semi-colonies – will safeguard them and give them immunity to NATO’s destructive activities. That’s the only result we have ever seen from the alliance.

Question: How can the Foreign Ministry comment on the recent statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell in support of such foreign agent organisations as Meduza, the Sakharov Centre and Moscow Helsinki Group, whose activities are recognised undesirable in the Russian Federation?

Maria Zakharova: I have already partially mentioned this citing another example today. The situation is similar here. This highlights that the decision to give the status of a foreign agent to the entities you mentioned was right. Look how zealously they are protected.

Josep Borrell’s demonstrative care about freedom of the media and the observance of human rights in Russia is hypocritical and built on double standards. The policy of the European Union itself is based on aggressive propaganda, censorship and suppression of dissent. Traditional journalism has taken shape over decades, and sometimes centuries in some EU countries, journalism that truly lauded the principles of freedom, impartiality, commitment to democratic institutions both in theory and in practice in its everyday work. Yet today the superstructural mechanisms dominate in the European Union with the direct contribution of the NATO bloc. Little is left of real journalism. Its voice cannot break through, or is removed from the playing field by those who are independent journalists or the media, or they have been reformatted, or the information flow is controlled to such a degree that journalists simply don’t have a chance to form their own independent agenda.

Over the past years, a number of print and audiovisual media have been suspended in various EU countries simply for allowing themselves to tell their viewers the uncomfortable truth about the causes and progress of the special military operation. The latest example is the recent closure of the RT France TV channel without any legal grounds. They didn’t declare them to be “not as they should be”, they didn’t “label” them (labelling is in the past), now it is simply that they “must not work,” so they closed it. There are specialised propaganda structures operating under the auspices of the European External Action Service that are responsible for targeted dissemination of disinformation about Russia and the discrediting of any arguments that do not fit into the anti-Russian clichés promoted by the West.

In fact, in the situation with the organisations you mentioned and similar pseudo-media, the European Union revealed its true colours and confirmed that they are used to create a picture of current developments that the EU needs in order to shake our society from the outside.

Russia’s decision to recognise certain organisations as undesirable through a court decision, by assigning an appropriate status in accordance with the legal procedure, has not violated any international obligations. Our law enforcement agencies consistently enforce Russian law, including the law on foreign agents. We have repeatedly talked about what prompted us to introduce such legislative novelties (this is indeed a novelty for our legislation and society) – experience, but not the historical experience lived through and rejected by the West, but one that they began to actively apply.

We were proceeding from the fact that if the information space is common, then there should be free competition, independent dissemination of information, which we all committed to when we signed a number of fundamental OSCE documents. But we began to see that we played openly while absolutely unacceptable methods were being used against us. We can see how special means are used to influence our information agenda, hiding behind beautiful words about democracy and freedom. Accordingly, legal norms have been developed to protect us against such outside interference.

These norms take into account the experience of other countries, including the US, where a similar law has existed in a stricter version since the 1930s. The European Union should monitor more closely the law enforcement practices of its overseas ally in this area.

I cannot remember the last time Josep Borrell criticised Washington. If this happened, what does he say about granting the status of a foreign agent in the United States? On what days of the week does Josep Borrell criticise the US? He spends all his time making insinuations about the growth of authoritarianism in Russia. Let me remind you that we are not members of any association: neither the EU nor NATO. And the European Union is now a partner of the alliance and its member countries in the absolute majority are members of NATO. Not all NATO countries are EU members. We can see an obvious trend. Maybe you should start with yourself? And criticise each other? And only then get to us.

It should not be forgotten either that freedom of expression enshrined in international human rights treaties is not absolute and in practice may be subject to obligations and restrictions that can be formulated as liability. We have already talked about this today.

Russia remains open and free, with tens of thousands of NGOs and media operating freely and in strict accordance with the Russian legislation and our international obligations. If the EU does not see this, it is their problem. It is a reality that they cannot cancel in any way.

Question: Could you comment on the recent statements by President of the European Court of Human Rights Síofra O'Leary about Russia being “expelled” from the Council of Europe as an “aggressor state,” as well as on the Court's plans to consider complaints against Russia as a matter of priority?

Maria Zakharova: This is just ridiculous. They keep repeating they have “expelled,” “ousted,” “kicked Russia out” of the Council of Europe.

Let me remind you how it was. These are historical facts. On March 15, 2022, Russia, in full accordance with the Charter of the Council of Europe, announced its intention to withdraw from that organisation after its Committee of Ministers decided to suspend our country’s rights. The next day, that body, contrary to its own Charter, “expelled” Russia from the Council of Europe overnight. Subsequently, when they came to their senses, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe tried to arbitrarily extend the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to Russia for another six months. Fantastic legal juggling. I always thought [this can be done] when you know how to use legal norms correctly, competently ad effectively to sustain your argument. But this is travesty of the rule of law. But it will not change the main thing, tough, – the application of the convention and the ECHR jurisdiction terminated for Russia on the same day as its membership in that organisation, which is March 16, 2022. It is not an attempt by Moscow to evade responsibility, as the President of the Court claims; the fact is that this convention applies exclusively to members of the Council of Europe. Without full membership in the Council of Europe, representation in the ECHR is impossible. I can understand that people who can talk about freedom of speech and block media outlets without seeing the inconsistency in this probably have their own ideas about reality. They live in a fantasy world.

Let me remind you this again. Without full membership in the Council of Europe, representation in the ECHR is basically impossible.

It should not be forgotten either that the Russian Federation remains a party to a number of universal human rights treaties that establish a wider range of rights and freedoms than the European Convention.

Even though Russia has not been a member of the Council of Europe since March 16, 2022, that organisation never abandoned its anti-Russia discourse. We left, but they still think we are “in the room with them.” But we are no longer there. Only, what do they care about facts when they live in their own invented world? That's why they keep talking about us. One gets the impression that various Strasbourg agencies are trying to outdo each other in their anti-Russian rhetoric, overlooking the real problems they have. Yes, we have left, but they still have their own problems. Interesting. Moreover, they have problems with human rights, and big problems for that matter. But no, it's all about Russia again. This, I think, is love.

What the Court of Human Rights is doing is more of the same. Once again: its jurisdiction no longer applies to the Russian Federation.

The head of the court compromised her obligation to maintain neutrality and branded Russia an “aggressor state” (let me remind you that she is a “judge”). Now here is a tricky question. Can a member of the Court, who has been provided with evidence of systematic shelling by Ukraine of the civilian population in the Donbass republics since 2014, not know that Russia launched its special military operation under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which mentions the “right of individual or collective self-defence”? Question: where have they all been for eight years since 2014?

It is revealing that, as the person you mentioned said without hesitation, more than a third of the “priority cases” for the ECHR concern Russia – a state that is not even a member of the Council of Europe. A third of their work. How can this be? That’s a big question. Maybe they see us as the centre of the universe.

It was not a statement made by a judge, but rather by a functionary fulfilling a political order. Given all this, can the ECHR claim the role of an impartial Themis, guided by high ideals while ruling about the base? The answer is obvious, and that answer is No.

Question: How would you comment on the recent statement by Kim Yo-jong, a deputy department head at the Workers' Party of Korea Central Committee, about US manoeuvres and North Korea’s commitment to standing together “on the same battlefield” with the Russian army?

Maria Zakharova: It was a realistic assessment of Washington and its satellites’ actions to escalate the Ukraine conflict even further. We are grateful [to North Korea] for its consistent and reasoned support in the context of Russia’s special military operation. Again, it was not just a political statement or slogan, but a stance based on sound reasoning.

Many other states share a similar approach. Some of them speak out openly, while others refrain from publicly expressing solidarity with us solely because of the blackmail and pressure used by Washington. Pyongyang has voiced its sovereign, courageous and resolute stand in the international arena.

Question: How would you comment on US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's message to Sergey Lavrov which he passed on through Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry? What proposals did this message contain?

Maria Zakharova: At a press conference yesterday, the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, commented on the whole thing, and I have nothing more to add.

Question: And what would you say about Russia's possible response to a personal message?

Maria Zakharova: There was a personal response to the personal message from Sergey Lavrov. It was detailed and lucid. Even Antony Blinken would understand.

Question: Will there be a separate message from the Russian Foreign Minister that someone will pass on?

Maria Zakharova: Do you want Sergey Lavrov to send anything additional? He already did so yesterday. If there is anything, we will be sure to inform you.

Question: Regarding relations between Russia, the United States and the collective West, a point of view is voiced repeatedly that they are at the lowest point since the Cold War. Do we see any chance for them to improve? Which side should start taking steps? Or should these steps be reciprocal?

Maria Zakharova: Maybe I am not reading enough of what you are reading, but I hear this phrase in a different context and with a different inflection. For example, our relations with China are at the highest point of their historical journey. At the same time, we express the hope that they will continue to grow. As for the fact that our relations with the West are at their lowest, the worst point since the Cold War: perhaps there is such an assessment. But it seems to me that this is about other things, not about "points" and "levels" at all.

We are seeing how the collective West is increasingly drawn into open confrontation with our country on the battlefield. What "point" is that? They have gone beyond all those points already and, most importantly, they have crossed out everything positive that has been accumulated over the past decades and what Russia has been paying attention to. Let me remind you of our security proposals made at the end of 2021 in order to allay concerns, to reaffirm guarantees, to reset them somewhere or create them, to return to the times characterised by such notions as trust. All this was rejected. At that time, it was probably still possible to talk about some kind of "points."

Now, as the Russian leadership, in particular Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, says, we are seeing how the collective West is moving from a hybrid war to a real war, as it were. We have already talked about it today.

It is all camouflaged with talk about non-involvement, non-participation, non-engagement. And then there are the deliveries of special equipment, of heavy weaponry. The Westerners are doing the job of spotters, literally. Remember the US statement. First we heard from the Kiev regime, then the Americans confirmed that they are indeed correcting fire. I am not speaking in military language now; this is just the essence. They are actually adjusting fire at all targets. They are not just sharing information; they are manually directing Ukrainian weapons and troops at sites located on our territory. What "points" are there to talk about?

Regarding "what could be done if", it has been repeatedly discussed at length. We have simply stopped talking about it altogether. The West itself prompted us to go from words, political contacts and negotiation directly to the situation on the ground. Was it our initiative? No, it wasn’t. It came from Josep Borrell, from Ursula von der Leyen, the White House, from all kinds of US officials. It was not a personal viewpoint that was voiced, but an official one. There is nothing to discuss now. Hold on for now.

Question: Recently, NATO and the United States sent senior officials to Asia. Do these visits mean that the North Atlantic Alliance is trying to enhance its influence in Asia, join the creation of an “Asian version” of NATO and extend the bloc confrontation approach from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region?

Maria Zakharova: This isn’t an entirely unexpected question. I've already answered a similar question in detail. I'll focus on the first part of the question, on the visit.

NATO Secretary General and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s tour of East Asia is yet another attempt to drag our partners (in this case, South Korea and Japan) into the Ukraine crisis. This is not just destabilising the situation in the Asia-Pacific region overall; it is a specific, targeted effort to draw countries that are not in NATO or the EU zone of responsibility (given that those two are a package now) into the situation in Ukraine. They are trying to expand the anti-Russia “coalition” they are putting together.

We strongly believe that the involvement of the above-mentioned states in supporting the Kiev regime will lead to a further prolongation of the conflict. They need to realise that. The NATO countries are playing a primary role in escalating this conflict. That much is obvious. We talk about this regularly.

The Republic of Korea and Japan should focus on the security situation in the geographical region where they are located. Seoul and Tokyo should realise that no progress in addressing security challenges can be made without building constructive relations with their immediate neighbours.

As for Jens Stoltenberg and Lloyd Austin’s disproportionate activism, you see that what they are doing is not strengthening, but undermining the security of anyone who agrees to expand cooperation with this aggressive North Atlantic bloc.

Show me a point on the map where NATO or the US have played a constructive role. I would like to know where they have used their specific knowledge and experience that led to tangible, positive results; this would give them the right to involve countries in their destructive projects pretending they were “constructive” missions. There are simply no such examples.

In addition, the NATO Secretary General's Asian trip was another manifestation of their ambition to make the alliance global. This was documented earlier by the decisions of the NATO Madrid Summit. Moreover, the same ambitions run through the recent joint declaration by NATO and the EU, where they bluntly talk about the need to fight on all fronts and using all the resources democracies can use “against autocracies.” Isn’t this remarkable? Which is a democracy? Which one among them? Is the United States a democracy? Where is that democracy?

Western missionaries are persistently pushing for NATO-centric approaches to the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region. Let's think back to our conversation earlier today about what the Netherlands is like now. A couple of hundred years ago, when that country was involved in the slave trade, they too said that that was their “mission,” and that white people brought “good” to that region and started trafficking people living on that continent for the benefit of those people. A couple of hundred years later, they say it was a “mistake.” They recognise it was wrong and unseemly indeed. But they aren’t going to bear any material responsibility anyway.

Now they want to do this again. Only this time, they’ll call it missionary work, the logic of liberation, the “gift” of democracy in various shapes and colours for those who are not mature enough, but can make a “leap” forward under US guidance. Again, they will impose something they will be sorry for after a while, and then they will repent and apologise. There can be no other way. And so it will be.

Essentially, they are trying to restore the global hegemony of the “collective West,” led by Washington, which used to take other forms in the past – imperialism or colonialism. Today’s version is exceptionalism. They are trying to destroy any ASEAN-centric inclusive approaches to security in Asia.

An integral part of this policy is demonising geopolitical rivals, primarily Russia and China, using blackmail, sanctions, fragmentation of security in various regions and imposing a confrontational agenda on them. They do not care whether this meets the interests of the Asia-Pacific countries or not. Western missionaries know the “right thing to do.” They don't care about any other point of view.

China is one of the largest countries in the region by most indicators. Beijing is opposed to the alliance and the United States’ expansion into the region. Why is China's opinion not taken into account? This is an intraregional matter after all, and regional players must have a say in this before anyone else. But the United States does not seem to think so. A country that has been a donor of labour resources for years, as well as of investment (China’s sizeable investments around the world), and one of the global technology development centres – does not have a say? Of course it does.

Question: Germany's GDP fell in the fourth quarter of last year lower than expected. Strikes are going on in France and the UK. These are challenging times for Europe. Is the cause related to geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions?

Maria Zakharova: There are a number of factors involved. One of them, and indeed the main one, is geopolitical tension. It did not "fall" on Germany for nothing. It was part of their policy. Another thing is that they are subordinated to the policy of Washington and are implementing its will "with their own hands." At present, the world economy is suffering tangible losses as a result of a total curtailment of trade, economic and investment relations with Russia by the "collective West." This was initiated by them, not us. Washington is forcing it on everyone else as well.

Almost all countries (I mean the Western countries, the EU), including Germany, are experiencing a slowdown in economic growth. A number of leading western economies are on the brink of recession or are already there. People's incomes are falling and businesses are experiencing tangible losses. Socio-economic problems are on the rise, and inflation has reached unprecedentedly high levels.

As Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said, the prosperity of the EU countries has been based on cheap energy supplies from Russia and access to the massive Chinese market for many years. Washington was against the "rise" of Europe. Apparently, in its understanding, Europe should have long ago demonstrated its "decline," but it somehow did not go all the way to the end, and Europe is still trying to "take off." And it did "take off" with its currency and social package, and it is showing new signs of life. Who could be happy with that in the White House? They "cut off" cheap energy from Russia, now they "block" ties with China so that there would be no mutual enrichment with technology, resources, etc.

Now the situation has drastically changed: Brussels has to find new ways to get energy, and working with China is becoming more and more difficult. This, as Josep Borrell has pointed out, will lead to a major restructuring of European economies. Which is a slowdown.

Entire sectors of EU economies have been successfully developing precisely due to stable supplies of Russian oil and gas under long-term contracts. Which we were happy about, too. It was profitable for us, not only because we reaped financial gain. But because a stable, prosperous Europe is also our "common home." We have always said that stable, peacefully developing, prosperous and well-off neighbours are above all to our benefit. But, I repeat, it was not to the advantage of the USA.

It compensated for expensive labour in European countries (based on cheap resources) and the cost of ensuring high environmental standards. Overall, this scheme allowed EU states to compete successfully with foreign companies on global markets. The politicised move away from Russian energy has broken this decades-long scheme. It knocked out a pillar of European economic prosperity. The very representatives of the European Union acknowledge this. Another thing is that they are shifting accents, saying that Russia is to blame. What have we done wrong? What are we guilty of? Only that the United States began to "drag" its military bases to our borders? And began to "simulate" the situation in Ukraine "in defiance" of us in order to create their own outpost there? Should we not have reacted to this? Because we reacted, are we to blame? No, of course not.

We must see the situation as it is. It is as we said. The loss of sovereignty and true independence of the European Union has led to the loss of resources for their future development. They have not yet learned how to develop differently. They do not have what it takes to ensure that their growth rate matches that of other emerging or already established centres in the world. This is predicted to further worsen the economic situation in Europe in the long term, leading to de-industrialisation due to a loss of global competitiveness with all the ramifications that this entails.

Question: According to Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Olavi Haavisto, Helsinki is investigating ties between ultra-right politician Rasmus Paludan and Russia. Finnish authorities have reportedly uncovered important evidence confirming these ties. What can you say about these statements?

Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this. I do not think there is any need for an additional statement. We have seen no such evidence. No one in Finland has said anything about any evidence. We have informed the Ambassador of Finland to Russia that it is unacceptable to release statements like this. Regarding the availability of important evidence, you should ask the Finns directly.

Question: Today, you commented on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision, but you said nothing about Ukraine’s response. Are you familiar with their response? Kiev has said that the neutral flag of Russian athletes would be smeared with blood, and that there is no such concept as neutrality while this war continues.

Maria Zakharova: This is a malignant statement. I do not think we should comment on it. This shows the morbid nature of the Kiev regime.

Question: Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he is thinking of providing military assistance to Ukraine, and that he would also like to mediate a resolution of the crisis.

Maria Zakharova: What is your question? This is a statement from Israel. We do not divide countries along geographical lines when analysing arms shipments. We are saying that all countries supplying weapons should realise that we will see these weapons as legitimate targets for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Everyone knows our position very well. They should understand that any attempt (including those that have been implemented and those that have not been implemented but have been stated) to supply additional or new weapons will escalate the crisis. We are also talking about this. Everyone should realise this.

Question: Will this influence relations between Russia and Israel?

Maria Zakharova: I have just replied to your question.

Question: Former French colonies in Africa such as Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are unhappy with the French presence. France associates it with Russia, China and Turkiye’s growing influence on the continent. Emmanuel Macron accused our country of a “predatory growing influence” against France in Africa. Why do you think no former French colonies need France? Is Russia to blame or is there a different reason?

Maria Zakharova: It shows that France treats the African continent not as an independent geopolitical entity but from the standpoint of its colonial past. How can one fail to see and hear what the African countries say themselves? Each country speaks in favour of developing relations with a particular state in accordance with their interests, conditions and abilities. They do not need a microphone in the Elysee Palace for this. They are capable of voicing what they want to say on their own. If they deem it necessary to develop relations with Russia, it has nothing to do with Emmanuel Macron, Elysee Palace or France. France’s colonialism on the African continent is over. The epoch where African countries had to ask someone, say France, when they wanted to make a sovereign decision, is gone.

They do not have to ask. They had been asserting their ability to be independent for many years in different way, including with weapons in hand and through national liberation struggles. They have finally asserted this. Not without the help from Russia, which was very active in supporting the process of decolonisation.

Nobody cares about Macron’s words. Why is he saying this? For his own PR to show that he is involved in global processes? You should ask him and his press office.

We develop our relations with Africa irrespective of the French factor – either past, present or future. So we are not interested in hearing what they have to say in Paris. It is crucial for us what they think in Africa – the African Union and individual countries. We are interested in their opinion. Unlike France, we have never changed our position of principle on this issue, be it the USSR or present-day Russia. We always regarded African countries as sovereign and independent partners – some of them as friends, others as comrades or those we are pursuing joint economic projects with, yet some others as allies. We have a custom approach to our relations with each country. We can very well do without advice from Paris. I am referring to both Russia and Africa.

Question: The US Secretary of Defence declared their “commitment to maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula.” However, the situation is drifting towards conflict. So far Russia has refrained from offering assessments, hasn’t it? What do your Ministry’s experts think about options to lower the temperature?

Maria Zakharova: This topic was commented on by Foreign Minister Lavrov at a news conference yesterday. And I have also said much about it today.

Question: In his recent address to the EAEU member states, President Vladimir Putin urged to step up the promotion of the Eurasian Economic Union, its achievements and potential. What does your Ministry intend to do in this regard?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to point out that by “promotion” we mean increased awareness of the people, the population, businesses and foreign partners of the operation of the Eurasian Economic Union. We speak about achievements, advantages, ongoing projects, decisions made and events held within the association, and also why it is beneficial and attractive and may be of interest.

The Ministry works on that on a regular basis through publishing in different sources, interviews as well as holding related events. As you know, in 2023, Russia assumed the chairmanship of EAEU governing bodies. It entails several dozen events to develop the Union. We will narrate them in our official accounts.

You can also find information you need about Eurasian integration in the Telegram channel of our First CIS Department’s Eurasian economic integration division which carries daily accounts of news and reports about EAEU activities.

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 1, 2023

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное